Talk:Hydrogen storage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid importance within energy.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

This is turning into a good article! Mattisse 10:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Good start Matisse. Mion 19:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The article is only in focus about mobile storage, i am missing a section about domestic storage, in fixed storage volume doesnt matter. Mion 19:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] pRoPeR cApItAlIzAtIoN?

Is there any objection to moving this article from "Hydrogen storage" to Hydrogen Storage", to properly capitalize? If my suggestion is improperly capitalized for wikipedia articles, then by all means, let me know so that i may change my ways. But I always thought that aritcles were capitalized.--Vox Causa 22:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Surely they are only capitalised if they are a proper name --Alex 08:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a name keep it as it is.Mion 10:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Exactly!--Alex 10:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The article says, "Even liquid hydrogen has worse energy density per volume than hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline by approximately a factor of four. In fact, there is about 50% more energy in a gallon of gasoline (121 MJ) (0.9 lb) than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen (80 MJ)(0.6 lb)." But if there's only 50% more energy in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen, then wouldn't liquid hydrogen have worse energy density per volume than gasoline by a factor of only 1.5, rather than by a factor of 4? 72.174.84.78 23:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

have a look at Energy density. liquid hydrogen 8 MJ/L , Gasoline 29.0 MJ/L almost factor 4. reg Mion 23:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the figures in the first sentence are all wrong. What it means to say is that there's 50% more HYDROGEN in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen. But that doesn't mean there's only 50% more energy in the gasoline, because the carbon in the gasoline contributes substantially to energy of burning. See the point? I'll fix the text about confusing amounts of hydrogen with energy. SBHarris 00:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slight reshuffle

I've rearranged the page somewhat. The stuff under targets was about proposals, and some of the stuff under research was about stuff (most notably nanostructured carbon) that's been shown to be unviable. So I've shoved it all together under "Proposals and research". I also took the opportunity to point out that the 2005 targets were not met. 129.16.97.227 15:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Metal Organic Frameworks is an excellent news.
Well, that was random! 129.16.97.227 00:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental technology template

I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwandersTalk 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Carbon

Those new references in the carbon section are mal-formed, and thus pretty useless. I'm sorely tempted to revert that whole edit. There have been so many contradictory specific claims about storage in carbon over the years you simply cannot say "carbon can store this much: see this reference" with any confidence. It's cherry picking. Please, fix those references. 150.203.35.113 (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No one commented. So I nuked it. 210.9.141.89 (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)